- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kirkwood Homes LTD against Robert Cameron (Court of Session)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Pursuer, a residential property developer, and the Defender, the owner of a large farm, entered into an options agreement concerning approximately 328.22 acres of land. The agreement permitted the Pursuer to exercise options over parts of the land during a ten-year period. [1][2][3][4][5]
After obtaining planning permission for a development site, the Pursuer undertook that any option would be exercised only once and over at least the whole site, unless the parties agreed otherwise. The Pursuer later served notice exercising an option over a smaller area without such agreement. [6][7][8][9]
The Defender treated the notice as invalid and discontinued the valuation procedure. The Pursuer accepted this as repudiatory breach and sought damages exceeding £5 million for loss of development opportunity. The matter came before the court on procedure roll, principally concerning the validity of the option notice. [10][11]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Pursuer’s undertaking restricted or extinguished its contractual option rights and rendered its notice invalid. [12][13][14][15]
- Whether waiver or personal bar could revive rights extinguished by the undertaking. [12][16][17][18]
Arguments of the Parties
Defender's Arguments
- The Pursuer could exercise an option only over at least the whole site, or another area agreed by the parties. No such agreement existed, so the notice was invalid and created no obligation to sell land. [12]
- The Pursuer’s claim of contractual breach was therefore irrelevant and the action should be dismissed. [12]
- Waiver and personal bar could not create a contractual obligation because they operated as a shield rather than a sword. [12][16]
Pursuer's Arguments
- The validity of the notice should be determined by the missives, rather than by the undertaking. [13]
- The undertaking was a unilateral promise and could not vary the bilateral missives. [13]
- Any issue of personal bar or waiver depended on factual questions concerning the Defender’s representations and the Pursuer’s reliance, which should proceed to proof. [13]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| HOE International Limited v Andersen 2017 SC 313 | The validity of an option notice is assessed by reference to the contractual requirements. | The court held that the case offered limited assistance because the dispute concerned the curtailment of option rights, not merely compliance with notice requirements. [13][19] |
| Macfarlane v Johnston & Ors (1864) 2 M 1210 | A unilateral promise does not require acceptance and is distinct from a bilateral contract requiring mutual consent. | The court accepted that the undertaking was a unilateral promise but held that the Pursuer’s argument was beside the point because its practical effect was to restrict its own rights. [13][20] |
| Shaw v James Scott Builders & Co [2010] CSOH 68 | Waiver and personal bar operate as a shield rather than a sword. | The court relied on this principle in holding that waiver or personal bar could not revive rights extinguished by the undertaking. [18] |
| Advice Centre for Mortgages Limited v McNicoll 2006 SLT 591 | Waiver and personal bar operate defensively rather than as mechanisms for creating rights. | The court used the authority to support its conclusion that a fresh grant from the Defender was required to recreate the extinguished option right. [18] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court accepted that the undertaking did not formally vary the missives. However, it held that its practical effect was to restrict the Pursuer’s rights under them. [14]
Although the undertaking was a binding unilateral promise, it extinguished the Pursuer’s ability to exercise the option in any manner inconsistent with the undertaking. [15]
Because the options were exercisable unilaterally, the Pursuer could also unilaterally restrict or extinguish them without a formal variation of the missives. The resulting restriction operated on the Pursuer’s rights, rather than formally varying the bilateral contract. [20]
The court distinguished the issue from ordinary compliance with the form or manner of an option notice. The undertaking had curtailed the underlying option rights themselves. [19]
Once those rights had been extinguished, waiver or personal bar could not revive them. Only a fresh grant from the Defender could do so, and no such grant had been made. [17][18]
Holding and Implications
The action was dismissed. The court sustained the Defender’s first plea-in-law and reserved the question of expenses. [21]
The direct consequence was that the Pursuer could not recover damages based on the alleged repudiatory breach because its option notice was ineffective. No broader implications or new precedent were identified in the opinion.
Alert